An indictment satisfies Rule 7(c)(1) —and thus the requirements of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments —if it " ‘first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.’ " United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974) ); see also United States v. Lee, 833 F.3d 56, 67-68 (2d Cir. 2016) (stating that an indictment's failure to allege an element of the charged offense is a constitutional violation).
But in order "to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 7(c)(1), an indictment need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime." United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Put differently, "the indictment need only allege the 'core of criminality' the Government intends to prove at trial, since the indictment is 'read . . . to include facts which are necessarily implied by the specific allegations made.'"
In order to satisfy those requirements "[a]n indictment 'need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime.'" United States v. Rajaratnam, 13-cr-211, 2014 WL 1554078, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2014) (quoting United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013)). Furthermore, "[t]he Supreme Court has 'identified two constitutional requirements for an indictment: first, that it contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, that it enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions of the same offense.'"
Finally, it preserves the protection given by the Fifth Amendment from being ‘held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.’United States v. Silverman, 430 F.2d 106, 110 (2d Cir.1970)modified, 439 F.2d 1198 (2d Cir.1970) ; see Gonzalez, 686 F.3d at 126 ; United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir.2013) (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974) ). Rule 7(c) protects these rights.
"In general, an indictment is sufficient if it specifies the elements of the offense charged, fairly apprises the defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and allows him to contest it without fear of double jeopardy." United States v. Eirby, 262 F.3d 31, 38 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)); see also United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d. Cir. 2013). Even if an indictment is deficient, however, a conviction will not be reversed unless the defendant was prejudiced by the deficiency.
"In general, an indictment is sufficient if it specifies the elements of the offense charged, fairly apprises the defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and allows him to contest it without fear of double jeopardy." United States v. Eirby, 262 F.3d 31, 38 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974)); see also United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d. Cir. 2013). Even if an indictment is deficient, however, a conviction will not be reversed unless the defendant was prejudiced by the deficiency.
(quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1)). United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Pirro, 212 F.3d 86, 92 (2d Cir. 2000)).
United States v. Post, 950 F. Supp. 2d 519, 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (quoting FED. R. CRIM. P. 7(c)(1)). United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Pirro, 212 F.3d 86, 92 (2d Cir. 2000)).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1), an indictment need only contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged . . . .” “An indictment is sufficient if it ‘first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.'” United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)); see also United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007).
But in order "to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 7(c)(1), an indictment need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime." United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Put differently, "the indictment need only allege the ‘core of criminality’ the Government intends to prove at trial, since the indictment is ‘read ... to include facts which are necessarily implied by the specific allegations made.’